Hi all

Seeing as though I have to re-work my original conversation with NPC methods (they relied on my custom type constructs that were fine in Quest 3, but obsoleted by Quest 4) I was wondering which of the two 'standard' approaches to the problem to use this time.

The choices are the 'ask (NPC) about (NPC/Object /Room)' style, where the player has freedom to ask his specific question something like:

Ask Fred about Sally
or
Talk/Speak to Fred about Sally

and receive a reply in the style of;

"She's the librarian, but a bit of a petrol head!"
or (of course)
"Sorry, I don't know the woman at all."

Obviously the player can also use

Tell Fred about Sally

and (assuming the player knows about Sally) as a result have Fred (if asked about Sally again) reply

"She works in the library, but she's mad keen on sports cars!"

This is the approach I've taken in the past (using multiple chains of replies to avoid too much repetition)

As a matter of interest, reading one of the library books could also be used to have Fred going from knowing nothing about sports cars to being able to describe the finer points of Sally's car in great detail.

The other approach (and one I've seen used quite a lot) is the conversation tree style. In this the player initiates a conversation, but only has limited choices (from a menu) he can make, something like

Speak to Fred

After a polite exchange of pleasantries, Fred asks;

"So, what can I do for you"

(player is presented with a choose menu)

1: Ask him about the Porsche outside.
2: Ask him about his favourite Pub.
3: Ask him about Sally.
4: Thank him for his time and end the conversation.

Options 1-3 will provide a reply & lead to another set of choices - each of which will always offer an option to end the conversation.

Each of these approaches has good and bad points, so I'm really just out to canvass opinion on which is generally preferred.

Big Al (MaDbRiT)

I've thought about this frequently, and have never made a real decision, though I am leaning. To be frank, I am scared of the branching nightmare option 2 seems to promise. But option 1 has the player running into boring default messages for invalid keywords.

Recently I've been thinking about combining option 1 with keyword highlighting. The idea is that, if a word is bold or coloured in an NPC response, it means that the NPC may have more to say about that word:

>ask Joe about life
>Joe: "The days go by, you know. If not for this debt I would be outa' here."
>ask Joe about debt
>Joe: "Ever since I took that loan from Jack, he's had me runnin' to the woods and back every mornin'." He shakes his head. "Give him all the firewood he can handle! Never seems to pay off what I owe, though."

Now the player can ask or tell about "Jack", "woods", and "firewood".

This might also require a synonym checker for each NPC. Suppose Jack is a loan shark, then asking about "loan shark" may be synonymous with asking about "Jack".

Short forming option 1 seems like a good idea, too. If you've mentioned Joe's name in a conversation command (or he's the only NPC in the room), then "? debt" could be a short-cut for "ask Joe about debt", and "! debt" for "tell Joe about debt".

Having a "greet" command might be handy for introducing initial keywords. So "greet Joe" might ellicit:

>You: "Good morning, Joe. Nice weather, huh?"
>Joe: "Hey, me' boy. That sun feels good, don't it? Wish I didn't have to work today!"

As for boring default messages, I'm pondering whether there is some way to hijack them with a more interactive mechanic. As opposed to:

>ask Joe about the sun
>Joe shrugs.

...one could implement an in-game hint system:

>ask Joe about the sun
>He shrugs. You have the feeling he's a bit gloomy about work.
>ask Joe about work
>...

If you've solved his "work" problem, or made him happy in some way, then...

>ask Joe about the sun
>He gives a big smile but says nothing.
>ask Joe about smile
>...

With highlighting and reworking default messages in some manner (not necessarily the manner just described), I'm leaning to option 1.

Overcat wrote:To be frank, I am scared of the branching nightmare option 2 seems to promise

That is definitely a down side to option 2, and like you I shy away from the possibilities of creating such a monster!

As mentioned, I've used the former (ask about) option previously and I've provided half a dozen different default messages to soften the blow when dealing with items that don't have a discreet coded response. There is no getting away from the fact that sooner or later this method will result in a default being required though.

Overcat wrote:Recently I've been thinking about combining option 1 with keyword highlighting. The idea is that, if a word is bold or coloured in an NPC response, it means that the NPC may have more to say about that word:

I see where you are coming from with this, the advantage is that it guides the player into asking questions the NPC has a response for - unfortunately the disadvantage is that it guides the player into asking questions the NPC has a response for - which might give away the plot or a puzzle. Quite a tricky one to call really. I suppose one could limit the highlighted words to those that do not give away puzzles etc.

Actually this is another reason I don't care so much for the conversation tree approach, it (pretty obviously) must contain all the possibilities laid out for the player to choose from, unless the menus are to be dynamically modified under certain circumstances (ugh!)

Using Ask/tell about, but dropping a hint about what the NPC can talk about as part of a default response to something the NPC cannot talk about is probably the best compromise I think. You don't actually get rid of the default responses, but you do (hopefully) avoid the player generating a whole slew of them one after the other!

Realistically, that's the compromise we have to make I guess.

Big Al (MaDbRiT)

If I had the time to deal with the mess of a conversation tree, I would do it... Conversation trees hve a lot better potential for humor, as well as creating a more believable world and relationships with the characters. In my case, I have 40+ characters so it's just not realistic.

My two cents...

I like the "Ask Fred about..." system, as it requires the player to have at least some knowledge of the game. In that way, the player can not just query all the answers to puzzles. For a little more depth, you could flag when a particular subject was raised (or after entering a certain room, etc.), and then build upon it next time around. So, the next time the player "asks Fred", a little more may be divulged into the game play. This type of conversation does make more work for the author, but it adds nice depth to the game play.

Too, I like default answers! Not the kind that chastise or ridicule, or leave the player wondering what went wrong.
My preferences:
"I can't recall anything else."
"Ask me again later."
"I'm not sure what you mean."
"Fred, looking around, decides not to say anything else."

For dumb (a.k.a. unintelligible) responses, a random return of:
"You can't be serious."
"Do what?"
"Hee hee, maybe next time!"

Now, what would be the UK version of, "My two cents worth?"

Now, what would be the UK version of, "My two cents worth?"

That would be 'My tuppence worth' (tuppence being the common way of saying 'two pence' - so (exchange rate aside) it amounts to much the same really!

Al

Tuppence - got it!

I guess it would depend upon how easy I wanted my game to be. A "multiple choice" conversation would be good for a simpler scenario. For the more challenging, I would expect the player to know (or figure out) what to ask for/about. Provide responses for only the most significant keywords, and general responses for the rest.

Next (the plot thickens), if the player asks the right questions, have the NPC initiate a response commensurate with the query. If an object is involved (the Porche), offer a test drive and instantiate the keys as a new object.

Even with seemingly open-ended conversations, you should be able to steer the conversation in the right direction with good responses. The player should be able to tell by the NPC responses if the conversation is heading somewhere. I wouldn't think that any other feedback (highlighted words, etc.) would be necessary.

I've played, or rather tried to play, a few games where I had no idea what to say. The author had not provided adequate room descriptions, etc., for me to be able to figure out what to say or do. Not fun - I lost interest quickly.

Alf wrote

Even with seemingly open-ended conversations, you should be able to steer the conversation in the right direction with good responses.

EXACTLY! I think this is the key to 'ask/talk' working effectively. The responses need to guide the conversation into the areas they are designed to have useful responses to. The trick is to do this in a reasonably subtle way so that it feels like a natural conversational flow. Also you need to have appropriate opening points to the conversation so that we don't get;

I've played, or rather tried to play, a few games where I had no idea what to say.

That (to me) means there's something adrift with the way the NPC has been introduced / developed. To use my Librarian with the sportscar fetish example, because she is standing behind the counter in the library and wearing a 'head librarian' badge when she is first introduced to the player, it isn't a great leap of logic to realise she might well know something (if asked) about the library, its stock or regular customers. It wouldn't be at all obvious that she was a petrolhead who could usefully be asked about sports cars and in particular the Porsche in the car park that you passed on your way into the library.

Now there are lots of ways to 'lead' the player (in conversation) to discover the Librarian's unusual interest. You might, when spoken to for the first time have a Q & A response that went something like;

Ask Sarah about the Library

(Evidently slightly startled by having her concentration broken, Sarah looks up from the 'Porsche Owner's Club Monthly' magazine)
"This is the biggest Library in the area, we have an excellent selection here."

Possibly a little unsubtle, but I'm sure the point is made. You could also have a Library regular tell you of Sarah's interests if you asked him(or her) directly about the Librarian.

Of course if the player tries something out of the blue like

Ask Sarah about Thai cuisine.

We've given no reason for the player to suppose she will know anything about that topic, so a default response is pretty much inevitable. In this case we have a great 'cop-out' because she can reply with a variety of options that all amount to;

I'm sure we have several good books on the subject.

It's impossible to cater for every possibility, making the limits feel reasonably natural is the best we can hope for.

Al (MaDbRiT) B

Nail on the head, Al!

If you mention that she is reading the Porche magazine, or wearing a sweater from the local Porche Lovers club, those revelations need to be pertinent. Whereas a conversation on that subject (or any other which is relevant to the game play) would be animated, a query about anything else should elicit a reply which clearly shows a conversation leading to nowhere. And that should happen immediately. If the player wants to waste time in pointless conversations, that's one thing. Never should the game waste the player's time.

That's not to say that you should not "flesh out" your NPCs. So, if the Porche magazine is not significant, and the player asks about it, the response may be, "Just something to read. She tosses it aside."

For conversational quality, I like a few different responses which say the same thing.

Interesting topic! I've been reading a forum thread about a particular hidden object game. The single biggest complaint was the poor grammar and spelling. I agree. Even a game with perfect gameplay will suffer if the conversational quality is poor. Meaning, you may spend as much (or more) time on the conversation as you do on the rest of the game. If you want quality, it will be worth the effort.